A brief post-preamble
As David said, I am going to be reposting, article by article, my How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide here at Grist. Before beginning, I would like to make a correction, present a plan, offer an explanation, and make a request.
David said that after 60 or so articles the guide is a “mission accomplished." Unfortunately, there really is a lot left to cover! That’s the correction.
The plan is to present these articles roughly following the Stages of Denial sorting, so it will read like a “journey of discovery.”
The explanation is prompted by a few comments I got from some of the more sophisticated contrarians I tangled with at the original site. They complained that the arguments I was debunking were often shallow or silly — that they were red herrings. I would like to state clearly for the record: there is not a single argument I addressed that I have not seen being made repeatedly on blogs, usenet, or less scientifically literate venues like the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. I can not defend against the charge that the denialist’s material is sometimes shallow, silly, or even downright ludicrous, but if it is good enough for the Senate floor or the congressional record, it is good enough for me to address.
Finally, I would really like to hear what readers think is missing. There are quite a few I already intend to write, but I want to know what else is missing, and suggestions will help me decide where to focus next.
Now, off to the races …!